Protecting his endorsement?

Posted in the Baytown Forum

Bill

Houston, TX

#1 Apr 4, 2013
On March 5, 2013 city council voted to accept amendments to Sections 86-51 and 86-150 of City Code regarding the placement of political signs in the City's rights-of-way.

Included in those approved amendment(s) was 86-51.4) signs may not be placed on public property if the adjoining property owner objects to the placement of the sign. Complaints regarding objections to the placement of the signs on public property shall be directed to the City sign administrator for action.

Vote to accept the amendment was 5-2, amendment approved. The Mayor was one of the 5 approving the amendment!

During the 04-02-2013 city council meeting Mayor Riddle requested Council to consider further revision to Section 86-51, whereby the language on Section 56-51.4 above would be removed from Section 86-51. When it was argued by Councilwoman Sinor that the approval of 56-51.4 was just approved less than one month ago Mayor Riddle said that it is not unusual to amend previously amended ordinances, but I cannot recall any amended ordinances that have been amended so quickly. General many months or even years go by before such happens.

The Mayor lectured Councilwoman Sinor on his reasoning for such a quick request. In my opinion the Mayor was out of order in berating the Councilwoman, especially in the manner he chose.

But why the quick request. Was it because he endorsed Mr. Mouton and realized that his stash of signs might be denied by some adjoining property owners? IMO, it would appear that many of Mr. Mouton's supporters are very concerned that their candidate will be embarrassed and rejected with such an amendment.

This election seems to have all the earmarks of protecting their candidate, Mr. Mouton, and going out of the way to try and help him secure the election by quickly amending what they feel might be detrimental to their hand picked (as I would call it ) candidate.. Also, a citizen/voter spoke to council in her support of keeping the originally approved 86-51.4 amendment in place and gave sound reasoning for her objection to the Mayor's request to go back and fix, if you will, a recent amendment that was approved by a 5-2 vote.

It's interesting that the Mayor was not one of the two that voted against the addition of the 86-51.4 amendment, now he is? I wonder who got to him? Talk about a flip flopper! My opinion

The Mayor seemed to have gotten his way and when Councilwoman continued her argument, in protest of removing 86-51.4, he slammed the gavel and called her out-of-order. Another way to protect his endorsement.

This is my opinion, listen to the council meeting on pod cast and you be your own judge.
Hilarious

Houston, TX

#2 Apr 4, 2013
Jerry has this in the bag....
Funny

Houston, TX

#3 Apr 4, 2013
How does he have it in the bag? Explain your theory.
If you don't have time during your campaign to call or ask for permission then that would be one less mess along the roadways. So as it stands a candidate can put a sign in front of my house or my place of business that I don't plan to vote for as long as it's on city easement. If I pluck it up I can be fined. Can I just remove it and give it back or put it against my house for them to pick up? Can I be fined if I do that?
Hilarious

Houston, TX

#4 Apr 4, 2013
I meant the election.
Voter

Deer Park, TX

#5 Apr 4, 2013
Hilarious wrote:
I meant the election.
I agree. He has it in the bag that will be thrown in the trash with all his expensive signs that he has wasted money on. He doesn't stand a chance of winning this election. The huge signs, billboard sign I just saw on Center Street that I think sits on Glen Tolars property, the mailer with the mayor endorsing him, the list goes on and on and on. This screams of desperation and the overkill shows it. I agree with the first post on this topic. Another way for the mayors hand picked candidate to be able to bombard his signs. Such a pity and I feel sorry for the ones throwing their money his way as it is going in the trash along with the bag and signs. They should know this method doesnt work. Remember the thousands of dollars spent on hundreds and hundreds of Vote for the 4B? They had them everywhere and it didn't help them at all. Same group of people spending thousands on mayors pick, and it won't work this time. People are fed up and tired of the handpicking. They will, as myself, be voting for candidates that are not handpicked. Mouton will have his workers out pretty fast picking up all those signs just like he had his workers picking up the 4B signs.
Voter

Deer Park, TX

#6 Apr 4, 2013
Bill wrote:
On March 5, 2013 city council voted to accept amendments to Sections 86-51 and 86-150 of City Code regarding the placement of political signs in the City's rights-of-way.
Included in those approved amendment(s) was 86-51.4) signs may not be placed on public property if the adjoining property owner objects to the placement of the sign. Complaints regarding objections to the placement of the signs on public property shall be directed to the City sign administrator for action.
Vote to accept the amendment was 5-2, amendment approved. The Mayor was one of the 5 approving the amendment!
During the 04-02-2013 city council meeting Mayor Riddle requested Council to consider further revision to Section 86-51, whereby the language on Section 56-51.4 above would be removed from Section 86-51. When it was argued by Councilwoman Sinor that the approval of 56-51.4 was just approved less than one month ago Mayor Riddle said that it is not unusual to amend previously amended ordinances, but I cannot recall any amended ordinances that have been amended so quickly. General many months or even years go by before such happens.
The Mayor lectured Councilwoman Sinor on his reasoning for such a quick request. In my opinion the Mayor was out of order in berating the Councilwoman, especially in the manner he chose.
But why the quick request. Was it because he endorsed Mr. Mouton and realized that his stash of signs might be denied by some adjoining property owners? IMO, it would appear that many of Mr. Mouton's supporters are very concerned that their candidate will be embarrassed and rejected with such an amendment.
This election seems to have all the earmarks of protecting their candidate, Mr. Mouton, and going out of the way to try and help him secure the election by quickly amending what they feel might be detrimental to their hand picked (as I would call it ) candidate.. Also, a citizen/voter spoke to council in her support of keeping the originally approved 86-51.4 amendment in place and gave sound reasoning for her objection to the Mayor's request to go back and fix, if you will, a recent amendment that was approved by a 5-2 vote.
It's interesting that the Mayor was not one of the two that voted against the addition of the 86-51.4 amendment, now he is? I wonder who got to him? Talk about a flip flopper! My opinion
The Mayor seemed to have gotten his way and when Councilwoman continued her argument, in protest of removing 86-51.4, he slammed the gavel and called her out-of-order. Another way to protect his endorsement.
This is my opinion, listen to the council meeting on pod cast and you be your own judge.
I listened to it and wow, sounds like you are correct. Mayors arm got twisted so his hand picked boy can keep littering his signs. Sounds like someone is worried and desperate. They should be. Change is coming and they are scared as hades.
Hilarious

Houston, TX

#7 Apr 4, 2013
The mayor slammed his gavel at Rae Sinor? For real? LOL -- I'm amazed she didn't just quit council right then, like she quits everything else the second she gets a teeny tiny bit offended..
Funny

Houston, TX

#8 Apr 4, 2013
Hilarious wrote:
The mayor slammed his gavel at Rae Sinor? For real? LOL -- I'm amazed she didn't just quit council right then, like she quits everything else the second she gets a teeny tiny bit offended..
You should contact the Chronicle where all your family members work and have them do a write up. Quick email them or just walk over.
winston zeddemore

Katy, TX

#9 Apr 7, 2013
Bill wrote:
On March 5, 2013 city council voted to accept amendments to Sections 86-51 and 86-150 of City Code regarding the placement of political signs in the City's rights-of-way.
Included in those approved amendment(s) was 86-51.4) signs may not be placed on public property if the adjoining property owner objects to the placement of the sign. Complaints regarding objections to the placement of the signs on public property shall be directed to the City sign administrator for action.
Vote to accept the amendment was 5-2, amendment approved. The Mayor was one of the 5 approving the amendment!
During the 04-02-2013 city council meeting Mayor Riddle requested Council to consider further revision to Section 86-51, whereby the language on Section 56-51.4 above would be removed from Section 86-51. When it was argued by Councilwoman Sinor that the approval of 56-51.4 was just approved less than one month ago Mayor Riddle said that it is not unusual to amend previously amended ordinances, but I cannot recall any amended ordinances that have been amended so quickly. General many months or even years go by before such happens.
The Mayor lectured Councilwoman Sinor on his reasoning for such a quick request. In my opinion the Mayor was out of order in berating the Councilwoman, especially in the manner he chose.
But why the quick request. Was it because he endorsed Mr. Mouton and realized that his stash of signs might be denied by some adjoining property owners? IMO, it would appear that many of Mr. Mouton's supporters are very concerned that their candidate will be embarrassed and rejected with such an amendment.
This election seems to have all the earmarks of protecting their candidate, Mr. Mouton, and going out of the way to try and help him secure the election by quickly amending what they feel might be detrimental to their hand picked (as I would call it ) candidate.. Also, a citizen/voter spoke to council in her support of keeping the originally approved 86-51.4 amendment in place and gave sound reasoning for her objection to the Mayor's request to go back and fix, if you will, a recent amendment that was approved by a 5-2 vote.
It's interesting that the Mayor was not one of the two that voted against the addition of the 86-51.4 amendment, now he is? I wonder who got to him? Talk about a flip flopper! My opinion
The Mayor seemed to have gotten his way and when Councilwoman continued her argument, in protest of removing 86-51.4, he slammed the gavel and called her out-of-order. Another way to protect his endorsement.
This is my opinion, listen to the council meeting on pod cast and you be your own judge.
Sorry Bill, I have been confusing you with a constitutionalist would might just advocate free speech...I'll never do it again.
MoutonNot

Deer Park, TX

#10 Apr 7, 2013
Sad to even have to say this, but Mouton will win because he has the name recognition. He will do a terrible job just like Riddle.
The reason he will win, in addition to everyone knoing his name, is that people dont keep up with what goes on in their city. Tey vote as they are told and the mayor is telling them to vote for Mouton
Votes

Deer Park, TX

#11 Apr 8, 2013
MoutonNot wrote:
Sad to even have to say this, but Mouton will win because he has the name recognition. He will do a terrible job just like Riddle.
The reason he will win, in addition to everyone knoing his name, is that people dont keep up with what goes on in their city. Tey vote as they are told and the mayor is telling them to vote for Mouton
You are incorrect. Name recognition? Never heard of him until I got that thing in the mail with his picture next to the Mayor. If the Mayor is endorsing him, no thank you. Will research the other candidates.
NoMoreOfTheSame

Deer Park, TX

#12 Apr 8, 2013
Mouton is very active in th Chamber of Commerce AND in Rotary. That's where the mayor gets all his support
NoMoreOfTheSame

Deer Park, TX

#13 Apr 8, 2013
...and Bennie Boles also is a member of both
Tatum

Houston, TX

#14 Apr 8, 2013
NoMoreOfTheSame wrote:
Mouton is very active in th Chamber of Commerce AND in Rotary. That's where the mayor gets all his support
The chamber brought you the sales tax increae & Rotary brought you, will be bringing you, the community center.

Some say the community center and the old SJE is only put off for a short period, we'll just have to see if it comes back to life in two years when the DPISD has no futher use for it.
Yppp

Houston, TX

#15 Apr 8, 2013
Tatum wrote:
<quoted text>
The chamber brought you the sales tax increae & Rotary brought you, will be bringing you, the community center.
Some say the community center and the old SJE is only put off for a short period, we'll just have to see if it comes back to life in two years when the DPISD has no futher use for it.
You mean opportunity center.

“Perplexed”

Since: Nov 08

Deer Park

#16 Apr 8, 2013
Yppp wrote:
<quoted text>You mean opportunity center.
Correct. Lucy, you got some esplanin' ta do.. Lol
CofC

Ponchatoula, LA

#17 Apr 10, 2013
The Chamber wants a new building and wants the Citizen pay for the new building.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baytown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Corner of Fairmont and East 2 hr trd 8
Nuke Dallas!!! 3 hr Texan 120
My Lost Dog 7 hr jdun56 38
Obama Quotes on Islam > 7 hr Texan 7
Crabs 8 hr Elaine 1
Democrat Voter Fraud... Wed Elaine 1
The Eagles' Concert Wed Texan 30

Baytown News Video

Baytown Dating
Find my Match

Baytown Jobs

Baytown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Baytown News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baytown

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]